










































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































'*o > 


lO -/■ 


o O o' \ ^ ^:"y* O o 

a° y " 1 A % 0 *• a 0 

♦ c\ <? v *<*°* > v a°-% cv o‘ 

A »^f4 0 A. AV * CV^S/V . ^ A * 


• A " A <, *'-•• ,o 

<> o°" c * .cr t 

[ ^ 


,4> v 

* <V J O' o 

> <£y &. • 



A 


V^ 




>*, 



L ' 


O v 


•°a -.mA 


^ 4, ^ V 

< 5 > " 1 A 

▼ V ^ > c • • 



<Z> 


9 N ° 



4 V 

o '0.4- A 

•P- A> 

•V 

". '^o* .‘jfiflgg*** •bv^ :- ; 

- ^o 

■ 0- V *"’*’ A 

^,. . -. A ,••». n> v ,‘v; 

O A *VG|©fe*. y A* ♦V^A.’c y 

*. "A ;AA; ‘'-V' Asiw '>'•' ;.m, 
>• A' ^ -?vv ■?> <* Aff!A A A ’•. 

. t #. „ A S o 0 " c * <$> cfi »*•'*< 

c ^ o ^ C 4 

\x 


V®-* a V ^ 




. A v y : 

‘ & % \ 















f O v & 0 * c * 

" c r^frS: '*o^ 

,-f 1 ^ *$Sm$: jP v. . 

- *'” -♦• -■.> 

* * 


o “- A *^*, * 

O * B - * f] r,, # a. 

\ v/ .•iSfe"’ ^ A^ 

cJi^ * ^ b « <^P«^ •* V^ 

; ,^-V *#W^- <A 

a* V <#> »X#|,v^ J> <% .% 

**** A <*. -'o. <■ 


<t 

•» 




y o <\ 

v °* *«.’•* f o 

v t'4*a'. ^ ^ t * 

^ .*« 

5 s V. xsiwir» x \ v ^ 




xV 9 < 


.4? '\i>- * 

^ <P * 

A G 

0^ 0°"®. 

0 , *^sSSSW.* O 

0* ° 

<Z ** w* * \Q V7*. 

w—. ^^ * • T #- • ./ ** Jv ^ O V 

r^A *$• 'Ky^T ^ * ./} ► x- As 4 ^ ^ /*\ >^- 'A ^Vluv^ H \ 

* *> If 0 ° ^ V ‘ O, * e i -, * «o ^ ^ ^ ^ 

+ ^ V O. .0 ,5^ > **> *\ v 

: w /Afc \** :*$&* • ^ * * 

d^» J A 

-» ^%/v, ¥ 

1 V- 



^ A 




.o' c 


O. 


v* :fw£:^ *+ $ 

K. > 0 -^ 

-I 0 . V 

O’ . - S .X‘„% ^ 


.0 V r 0 " d 




t / ^ 



V 

- 

« ,; 

>> 

Se ’/ 


O (, 


O ■ 

* 


* 

Z-? ^ 



* * f * * A° 

• g V ^ 

t; ^$ s 


^ffllilr^ ’’ Z^'P* 

; .r Ji i \" ^> °, i c 

*^5;‘s 4 A -, 

(•° r P ° Z' *“ a » ^ 

-y. > 0 . ’^\W. ^ 






^ *oV°* 

P V ^ 


rS ^ 

«0 jv 


V* 't- ^ 

^ 1 '^V 













Under Forty-nine Masters 


Francis H. Sisson 


OCT26191? 


PUBLIC LIBRARY 

AUG* '916 

WASHINGTON^ 










































Under Forty-nine Masters 


By Francis H. Sisson 

Assistant to Chairman, 


Railway Executives’ Advisory Committee 


"No man can serve two masters. Is there public advantage 
in compelling a corporation to serve three or more?” 


Reprinted from 

"Moody’s Magazine,” June, 1916 



COPYRIGHT, 1916, 

BY THE MOODY MAGAZINE AND BOOK CO 



Under Forty-nine Masters 

"No man can serve two masters. Is there public advantage 
in compelling a corporation to serve three or more?” 

T HIS is the pertinent question put by the 
Public Service Commission of Massachu¬ 
setts in reporting the results of its investi¬ 
gation of the New York, New Haven and Hartford 
Railroad Company to the Legislature of Massa¬ 
chusetts. This is a question, indeed, which strikes 
at the very heart of the railroad problem in this 
country to-day, and upon its answer hangs the 
issue of private ownership or Government own¬ 
ership of the railroads. In the failure of Con¬ 
gress to exercise more completely its constitu¬ 
tional right to regulate commerce, the States have 
encroached upon its prerogatives, and are to-day 
actually regulating interstate commerce by indi¬ 
rect methods all over the country. Like most 
other abuses of power, this has been a growth. 

Railroads Under State Rule 

America’s first general railroad legislation was 
enacted by Michigan in 1848. Illinois passed a 
railroad law the following year, and five years 
later, in 1854, Ohio followed suit. These were 
the beginnings of the present system of railroad 
regulation in this country, and nothing could be 
more antipodal than the public ideals prevalent 
then and now. Restraint was not remotely con¬ 
sidered in the early days. The railroads were 
given the widest latitude for their performance, 
and the substance and, indeed, purpose of many 

[3] 


UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


of these early statutes was a specific disclaimer 
of State connection with railroads involving re¬ 
sponsibility. To make this emphatic some States 
revised their constitutions! 

This policy was fortunate for the railroads. 
While it shows clearly that the States either mis¬ 
understood or ignored the material development 
and internal improvement, which the advent of the 
carriers foreshadowed, it gave to individual ini¬ 
tiative the freedom it required, and to the nation 
the leeway necessary for the foundation of the 
world’s greatest transportation system. 

Our Unco-ordinated System 

To-day, that situation is changed. Early legis¬ 
lative liberality has vanished, yielding place to a 
most confusing, multifarious, unscientific and vex¬ 
atious system of railroad laws and regulations. 
Probably at no time, the world over, has human 
enterprise, of any character, been subjected to a 
similar system of penalties and restrictions. 

One Federal commission and forty-eight State 
commissions exercise sweeping authority over our 
railroads. Congress and forty-eight State legis¬ 
latures, from time to time, increase, respectively, 
the powers of the Federal and the State com¬ 
missions. As the latter act independently and en¬ 
tirely without cooperation, confusion and uncer¬ 
tainty follow. Accordingly, our general railroad 
policy lacks uniformity, proportion, definiteness 
and efficiency. The closer it is examined, the more 
one is convinced of the truth of the old adage, 
“Too many cooks spoil the broth.” 

[ 4 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


Views of Two Presidents 

# President Roosevelt once admonished the na¬ 
tion in a message to Congress to deal sensibly 
with the railroads. Said he: “It must not be for¬ 
gotten that onr railways are the arteries through 
which the commercial life-blood of this nation 
flows. Nlothing could be more foolish than the 
enactment of legislation which would unnecessar¬ 
ily interfere with the development and operation 
of these commercial agencies.’’ 

More recently, President Wilson wrote: “The 
interest of the producer, the shipper, the mer¬ 
chant, the investor, the financier and the whole 
public in the proper maintenance and complete 
efficiency of the railways is too manifest. They 
are indispensable to our whole economic life, and 
railway securities are at the very heart of most 
investments, large and small, public and private, 
by individuals and by institutions.” 

Trade is not limited today to circumscribed 
areas. Practically every article of commerce 
finds the competing product of another region in 
any place of sale. This competition of product 
with product is the competition of commerce it- 
.self, and it is promoted and developed by the 
railroads. While the latter remain free and un¬ 
hampered by restrictive and punitive regulation, 
they can move the products of the country at 
rates reasonable alike to producer, consumer and 
railroad, thus keeping alive that healthy compe¬ 
tition which is the life of trade. Today, unhap¬ 
pily, the tendency toward over-regulation and 

[ 5 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


over-legislation of the several State commissions 
and legislatures is plainly paralyzing this func¬ 
tion of the carriers. 

Discriminating State Laws 

Sectional selfishness and shortsightedness have 
led to the passage of State laws giving a prefer¬ 
ence to railroad traffic within circumscribed areas, 
at the expense and to the prejudice of neighbor¬ 
ing States served by the railroads subjected to 
these enactments. Fifteen States, by prescribing 
a minimum daily movement for freight cars, or 
by imposing heavy penalties for delays, attempt 
to favor their own traffic. Some of these have 
fixed the minimum moving distance for a freight 
car at 50 miles a day, the average for the whole 
country being, approximately, only 26 miles. In 
one State the penalty for delay is ten dollars an 
hour. Twenty States regulate hours of railway 
service, the variations running from 10 to 16 hours 
a day. Twenty-eight States specify headlight re¬ 
quirements without an approach to uniformity; and 
fourteen States have dissimilar safety-appliance 
acts. Compliance with these requirements places 
a burden upon the railroads which is not borne 
alone by traffic from these discriminating States, 
but is imposed upon the whole volume of traffic 
entering these States. 

State laws, moreover, are not merely sugges¬ 
tive. They are positively mandatory, and divest 
the carrier absolutely of discretion to develop 
new markets or to deal with trade equities or 
exigencies. The State rate is the carrier’s guid- 

[ 6 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


ing star; the State law, or commission regulation, 
its compass. By these must it steer. As a result 
of such procedure, the creative, aggressive indi¬ 
viduality and experience of the railroad is throt¬ 
tled and subordinated to the caprice, arbitrary 
rule and inexperience of a number of political 
regulators whose performance is mechanical, 
superficial and selfish. 

This development is one result of the “legis¬ 
lation” decried by President Roosevelt, and is the 
answer of several States to “the complete efficiency 
of the railways” desired by President Wilson. 

State Policies Conflict 

Mr. Judson Clements, of the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission, protested against the embar¬ 
rassment occasioned the railroads through the 
conflict and divergence in State railroad policies, 
in an address before a convention of State Rail¬ 
road Commissioners, in November, 1914; and 
President Ripley, of the Santa Fe, declared that 
Government ownership of the railroads was inevi¬ 
table, in consequence of the volume of repressive 
restrictions governing railroads, but added that 
this would be fatal, because of its probable politi- 
cation. 

President Wilson’s recommendation to Con¬ 
gress, to appoint a commission of inquiry as to 
the status of the railroads and present conditions 
of operation, followed by the introduction of the 
Newlands’ resolution for a corresponding pur¬ 
pose, invites an examination of our present rail¬ 
road policy. 


[ 7 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


Let us go back a few years and glance over the 
activities of State railroad regulation in order to 
form an estimate of its merits and of the justice 
of the general railroad complaint. 

Rate-Reducing Crusade 

In 1907 twenty-one States reduced railroad 
passenger rates. These were: Alabama Arkan¬ 
sas, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mis¬ 
souri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, 
West Virginia and Wisconsin. Eleven States es¬ 
tablished railroad commissions, as follows: Colo¬ 
rado, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New 
Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsyl¬ 
vania and Vermont. Sixteen others enlarged the 
powers of existing commissions: Alabama, Arkan¬ 
sas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Caro¬ 
lina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wash¬ 
ington and Wisconsin. In addition, sixteen States 
adopted laws reducing freight rates or establish¬ 
ing “maximum” freight charges, and regulating 
demurrage penalties. These were: Alabama, In¬ 
diana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Vir¬ 
ginia and Washington. Public Utilities laws were 
passed by New York and Wisconsin, of a most 
comprehensive and sweeping character. 

In the foregoing enumerations are designated 
thirty-four individual States, each of which sought 

[ 8 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


to restrain and regulate railroads within its own 
borders, irrespective of the Federal control by 
Congress and the Interstate Commerce Commis¬ 
sion, and wholly indifferent to the steps taken by 
any or all of the other thirty-three States. They 
did an inevitably unscientific piece of work. For 
illustration: Indiana fixed the demurrage penalty 
at one dollar a day for each car which a rail¬ 
road failed to furnish to a shipper; North Da¬ 
kota made it two dollars; but Kansas and North 
Carolina placed it at five dollars per diem. Ne¬ 
braska reduced its passenger rates to two cents 
a mile and the law was taken to the Supreme 
Court of the State. While a decision was pending, 
Kansas announced its intention of adopting a 
similar law if the Nebraska statute was upheld, 
on the ground that a fare remunerative in Ne¬ 
braska should also be remunerative in Kamsas! 

Railroads and the Panic 

Now, it must be borne in mind, the Fall of the 
year which witnessed this legislative campaign 
against the carriers ushered in a regular, full¬ 
blown panic. The strain of this double visitation 
nearly wrecked our railroads and, as a matter 
of fact, drove many into bankruptcy. The tre¬ 
mendous shrinkages in income, as a result of 
the rate-reducing laws, coupled with a nation-wide 
business stagnation and condition of industrial 
paralysis, proved too much for a number of our 
railroads and a monumental strain to those which 
survived. 

President Wilson regards the nation’s railroads 

[9] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


as “the one common interest of our industrial 
life.” The individual States referred to, by their 
conduct in 1907, seemingly were united in regard¬ 
ing them as “the one common scapegoat which 
should be kicked with impunity.” 

In the years following 1907 our courts were 
busy defeating several of the railroad laws passed 
in the year mentioned. In Alabama, under the 
Comer regime, hostilities between the Federal 
and State authorities were barely averted; while 
in Minnesota suits were instituted which were not 
decided for six years. When the Federal Su¬ 
preme Court handed down its opinion therein, the 
Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Com¬ 
panies suffered a loss exceeding $3,000,000 as a 
result of State reductions in freight rates. 

The year 1907 and those immediately following 
constituted one unending nightmare for the rail¬ 
roads. In 1908, railroad receipts declined $300,- 
000,000, and outlays for current requirements, ex¬ 
tensions and improvements were reduced almost 
to the vanishing point. This affected adversely 
every industry dependent upon the carriers. For 
the four years ended with 1911, only 526,350 new 
freight cars were purchased as against 940,000 
for the four years ended in 1907. This was a 
shrinkage of almost 50 per cent. The decline in 
the number of locomotives built was 38 per cent, 
on the same comparison, the totals being, in round 
figures, 18,000 prior to 1907, and 11,000 prior to 
1911. In 1912, net earnings were $65,000,000 less 
than in 1910, which shows that the railroads were 
[ 10 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


still being subjected to Governmental activity, 
compelling new expenditures. 

Multiplicity of State Laws 

In Congress and in State Legislatures railroad 
bills were freely introduced. In 1909, in 41 
States, 664 new laws affecting railroads were en¬ 
acted. In 1911, in 40 States, new railroad laws 
totalled 276. In 1912, in 19 States, 48 measures 
for further railroad control became laws; and, 
in 1913, out of the magnificent total of 1395 pro¬ 
posed enactments, 230 were placed upon the stat¬ 
ute books of the several States. All told, be¬ 
tween 1912 and 1915, it has been computed that 
upward of 4,000 bills affecting railroads were in¬ 
troduced into Congress and our several State 
Legislatures, of which 440 have become laws. 

According to these figures, it would seem that 
the pursuit of the railroads has not declined 
among State lawmakers; and from this immense 
volume of State legislation, it is quite conceivable 
that much of it is useless and burdensome. Cer¬ 
tain it is that, in no particular, has it added any¬ 
thing to railroad revenue; while it can be shown 
affirmatively that it has cost the railroads millions 
of dollars through forced additional expenditures. 

Wages, Taxes, Receiverships 

Since 1906 the average wages of railroad em¬ 
ployes has risen 32.5 per cent., while railroad 
taxes have increased 69 per cent. Instead of in¬ 
creased rates for railroad service, coincident with 
these extraordinary advances in wages and taxes, 

[ 11 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


further reductions in numerous State rates have 
been enforced. The Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission granted commodity increased rates in 
Eastern territory, it is true; but its reductions for 
nine years are more than an offset to these. Be¬ 
tween June 30, 1907 and June 30, 1915, the rail¬ 
roads spent $4,800,000,000 in improvements and 
increased facilities. Notwithstanding this aver¬ 
age expenditure of $600,000,000 a year, the 
Bureau of Bailway Economics 9 estimate shows a 
shrinkage of $21,000,000 in net operating income 
in 1915, compared with 1907. 

To cap the climax, after all this regulation, to¬ 
day we have 82 railways, with a mileage of 42,000 
miles and a total capitalization of $2,264,000,000 
in the hands of receivers. Never before in the 
history of American railroad operation and man¬ 
agement was there recorded so large an aggregate 
railroad mileage bankrupt at one time. The chair¬ 
man of the Michigan Railroad Commission, a year 
ago, said: “Conditions under which the roads were 
operating in this State caused me to look into 
the question some time ago for my own enlight¬ 
enment and I was dumbfounded to learn that 
of the 56 roads in Michigan 33 of them were not 
earning enough properly to pay the interest on 
their funded debt.” 

States Control Operation 

In recent years the aim or direction of railroad 
restrictive legislation has been changed. Rate 
reductions were the objective eight or nine years 
ago; now, the legislative desire is to control rail- 

[ 12 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


road operation. In this undertaking railroad 
labor has a potential voice. This development 
portends heavy additional expenditures for the 
railroads and railroad managers are sorely per¬ 
plexed. Placed between the upper and nether mill¬ 
stones of reduced income and enlarging outlay, 
how can they provide funds for annual fixed 
charges; maintenance and operating expenses; re¬ 
placements and repairs; development to keep pace 
with natural business growth; and, most impor¬ 
tant of all, how are they going to provide a sur¬ 
plus, the sanctuary, the Gibraltar of every going 
concern ? 

Railroad salvation is spelled S-U-R-P-L-U-S. 
Upon this point the words of President James 
McCrea, of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 
before the Engineers’ Arbitration Commission, 
are pertinent. Said he: 44 How are they (the rail¬ 
road managers) going to provide the additional 
capital that is required to make the improvements 
that the public demand and which the necessities 
of proper transportation require? The money for 
this purpose can only be secured from the pub¬ 
lic, from the investors; and, therefore, you must 
keep up your earnings sufficiently to show a credit 
that will result in investors supplying you with 
the money that is needed. Now the basis of credit 
is what you have over at the end of the year, after 
you have made a reasonable return upon the cap¬ 
ital already invested.” 

"Extra-Crew” and Other Laws 

Bearing in mind this imperative obligation upon 
a railroad to maintain a surplus, let us return 

[ 13 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


to the present legislative tendency to regulate 
operation, and note some of its results. The most 
noxious legislation of this character is designated 
the “train-crew” or “extra-crew” law. Its spon¬ 
sor is the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. 
This measure aims to increase the number of 
men employed on freight trains, passenger trains, 
or in switching service—at times, in all three 
employments. 

Twenty States have adopted this law: Arizona, 
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, 
Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Washing¬ 
ton and Wisconsin. Nine attempts in six years 
have been made to secure Federal approval for 
such a law, but without success. Governor Sulzer 
approved a train-crew law for New York, after 
Governors Hughes and Dix had each vetoed a 
similar bill. Vetoes were also recorded against it 
by Governors Foss, of Massachusetts, Cruce, of 
Oklahoma, and Harmon, of Ohio. It subsequently 
became a law in Ohio. 

Twenty-one States, however, refused to enact 
this law: Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mich¬ 
igan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New 
Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, 
Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. 
This clearly shows that there is ground for di¬ 
versity of opinion, and that the railroads must 
have some justification for their assertion that 
such a law does not increase either safety or efifi- 

[ 14 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


ciency, but imposes unnecessary burdens upon 
railroad management. Missouri adopted a train- 
crew law, but, on a referendum to the voters of 
the State, the law was rejected by a vote of 
324,085 to 159,593—more than two to one in favor 
of the railroads. 

Drain on Railroad Revenue 

Extra-crew laws cost the Pennsylvania Railroad 
Company $550,000 a year in Pennsylvania, $180,- 
000 a year in New Jersey, and $120,000 in New 
York. The aggregate, $850,000, represents 5 per 
cent, on $17,000,000 of capital. The Federal Law 
restricting the hours of telegraph labor costs this 
railroad company $500,000 additional yearly, or 5 
per cent, on $10,000,000 of capital. The semi¬ 
monthly pay bill, obligatory in several States, 
costs the Pennsylvania $250,000 a year, or 5 per 
cent, on $5,000,000 of capital. State laws requir¬ 
ing the Pennsylvania to use regular passenger 
coaches for the benefit of crews on trains carrying 
baggage, express or mail only, involve the diver¬ 
sion from profitable use of cars representing 
$400,000 of equipment investment. All together, 
the Pennsylvania, in complying with these laws, 
pays as much each year as would represent a re¬ 
turn at 5 per cent, upon $32,000,000 of capital. 

In the fiscal year 1914, 166 railroads, operating 
204,610 miles, reported an expense of $4,051,533 
for compliance with extra-crew legislation. This 
amount equals a return of 5 per cent, on $80,- 
000,000 of capital. These companies reported a 
total expense of $28,703,983 in consequence of 
legislation regulating operation. This aggregate 

[ 15 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


equals a 5-per-cent, dividend upon an investment 
of $574,000,000. 

Other laws affecting operation and increasing 
expense require 8-wheel cabooses instead of 4- 
wheel cabooses; reduced hours of service; days off 
at company’s expense; additional watchmen at 
crossings; abolition of grade crossings; double 
track; safety appliances; electric headlights, etc. 
To comply with these and other numerous legis¬ 
lative decrees obviously increases operating costs, 
and this, in the long run, must be borne by the 
public. 

Other Exasperating Bills 

Failing to gain universal sanction for the full- 
crew demand, the Brotherhood referred to is now 
advocating ‘‘train-limit” bills to fix a maximum 
train length. The passage of such a law would 
react most expensively upon the carriers. Their 
efforts in reducing curves and grades r their adop¬ 
tion of improved brakes and couplings, their in¬ 
stallation of engines of increased tractive power, 
and many other steps taken by them for the eco¬ 
nomical and efficient movement of freight would 
be largely nullified. Capital invested in all these 
improvements must earn its fixed charges, but a 
reduction in the size of the train would make this 
dubious, while certain to add to operating ex¬ 
penses through the necessity of additional trains 
and labor. Furthermore, the engines of increased 
tractive power would be valueless, to a degree, 
if not used to capacity; and other engines would 
have to be purchased. 

These are some of the exasperating experiences 

[ 16 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


of the railroads that threaten their resources con¬ 
tinuously, and make them eager to take refuge 
under the single control of the Federal arm. 

Grave Assumption of Power 

Nineteen States have legally asserted their 
right to control bond and stock issues of railroads 
operating within their limits and, doubtless, this 
number will increase. This is an exceedingly 
grave assumption of State power over railroads, 
for it possesses possibilities of danger to railroad 
credit. In the case of a railroad traversing sev¬ 
eral States, the consent of each being necessary to 
a proposed issue of securities, many things may 
happen. One State may withhold its consent until 
the delay so occasioned defeats the project. All 
States may approve it but one, and that one slay 
the project by its refusal. 

All States but one may consent, and that one 
insist that some of the proceeds be spent within 
its own borders, although, perhaps, not needed 
there and actually needed in some other State. 
Hence, this newly developing feature of State 
regulation promises to place the financial stand¬ 
ing and credit of a railroad at the mercy of the 
State, which may be influenced or actuated by 
either political selfishness or illiberality. While 
this may seem incredible, it is an outgrowth of 
State railroad regulation, and an illustration of 
the extremes to which it has been carried. Only 
Congress should regulate so momentous an is¬ 
sue, through its deputy, the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. 


[ 17 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


Interstate Aspect of Traffic 

It may be fairly concluded, then, in view of the 
results of State regulation of railroads, that a 
multiplication of State Commissions is not the 
ultimate solution of our railroad problem. If 
attention be directed to the indisputable fact that 
a preponderating proportion of our railroad busi¬ 
ness is interstate in character—fully 85 per cent, of 
it—the inconsistency of shackling it with State con¬ 
trol and the impossibility of ever regulating it ade¬ 
quately through State agencies become manifest. 

Railroad terminals resemble harbors in their 
functions. The Federal Government provides ade¬ 
quately for harbors, their improvement and main¬ 
tenance; but it does nothing for railroad termi¬ 
nals, which render commerce similar and, indeed, 
greater services. If the Government may not fi¬ 
nance the construction of such important com¬ 
mercial facilities, it should smooth the way and 
ease the task of those whose duty it is to pro¬ 
vide them. And the most certain way in which it 
may do this is to do what the framers of the Con¬ 
stitution empowered it to do: to assume full con¬ 
trol over commerce among the several States for 
the protection of all the States. 

Power of Congress Supreme 

“The authority of Congress extends to every 
part of interstate commerce and to every instru¬ 
mentality or agency by which it is carried on; 
and the full control by Congress of the subjects 
committed to its regulations is not to be denied or 
thwarted by the commingling of interstate and 
intrastate operations * * * 

[ 18 ] 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


“It has repeatedly been declared by the Court 
that as to those subjects which require a general 
system or uniformity of regulation the power of 
Congress is exclusive. In other matters, admit¬ 
ting of diversity of treatment according to the 
special requirements of local conditions, States 
may act within their respective jurisdictions 
until Congress sees fit to act , and when Congress 
does act , the exercise of its authority overrides 
all conflicting State legislation.” 

In these two paragraphs, from the opinion of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
4 ‘Minnesota Cases,’’ is succinctly stated the plen¬ 
ary power of Congress to deal with the nation’s 
railroads and to end State control of these com¬ 
mercial arteries. 

State Rule Means Waste 

Mr. Frank Trumbull, Chairman of the Railway 
Executives ’ Advisory Committee, representing 
over 80 per cent, of the country’s railroad mile¬ 
age last February, before the Committee on In¬ 
terstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, Washington, D. C., said: “We are 
quite willing to sit down at the table with you 
and help you draft a law, provided you emanci¬ 
pate us from the States. Millions of dollars are 
going over the dam in waste every year because 
of duplications, discriminations and litigations 
arising out of a division of authority over rail¬ 
roads between the States and the Federal Govern¬ 
ment.” 

That the railroads have substantial reasons for 
their desire to be released from State control is 



UNDER FORTY-NINE MASTERS 


not to be doubted. As pointed out by Mr. Trum¬ 
bull, waste, discrimination, duplication and liti¬ 
gation are the fruits of State railroad regulation; 
while railroad development or efficiency has not 
been increased by it. Beal railroad progress must 
ever be impossible under a chaotic, divided au¬ 
thority, and that is what our present system ac¬ 
tually is. Private railroad enterprise cannot 
thrive longer under existing conditions. The 
present is too exacting; the future, to say the 
least, too uninviting. Under a single constructive 
authority, with a policy of absolute equality and 
fairness, railroad development should progress 
amazingly. 

Complete Federal Control 

The passage of the Newlands’ resolution by 
Congress should lead to a thorough investiga¬ 
tion of this question and, possibly, to the 
Federal incorporation of our railroads later. To 
provide efficient Federal control, the Interstate 
Commerce Commission should be enlarged and re¬ 
organized, and the prompt and intelligent per¬ 
formance of its duties made possible. Be that as 
it may, the “interstate” character of the vast 
bulk of this country’s railroad traffic is an index 
finger pointing the way to complete Federal con¬ 
trol as the one sensible, satisfactory solution of 
our transportation problem. 

It will be Independence Day for the railroads 
when the rule of their 49 masters gives way to that 
designed for them by the Constitution, essential for 
the commerce of the country, and demanded for 
their salvation. 

a - - 


[ 20 ] 


























































































































































^ V 


* r\ + %■* 

* & + — * 

^° <a " ° - ° 

aO **V'* v V A * °- "<x A>' «■ s * ' ' 

^ *vdfof. % & s* 


* i y 


^ V*^v * 


•vP. ,v 


■j'S 


*• v ^ - 


& 


V 


'\ 



c5 '■'V 

* «? ^ 
a <L V Ai. 




Ay ,* 
,J A<b S 


o^ " 
r o 



f -» 


<yy °" ° ’ A °^. * 

' % 05 - ->VA % A ^ - 

2 


. : ;> .S *W 7 AA ^ , c v 

« A> V > &dk-tfCwK - v* cr 

ip Y. 

♦' r, ’ *' 



- .Ay* ° 

^ \<£> v> 


■ /\ . 

A 0 O ' . . S s A <X * o * * 

y ‘“rlf* O A ••■'•. A 

♦ <_s^N\ <** o ’ Sr v i . />^^ *T 

' ^ a ^ 

* a> v ^ cr 

** -0 -V A 




-C V o°"°* ’ ; 0 

0 * o J 

* a ; -v. f*k* aN 

0 /*\ > .A 1 ** <* 'v^* 

♦ o > 


ja. 


^ * * 1 ' f 0 

A> 4? > s 

A> * 

^r> C< * 

: ^ <? • 


’ x a ° 


A 





/ A . , 

4 <L V rU + * 

A 'A, *•* *. jS A <> 'o, x ” 

r 0 ’ c VL° ♦ ^ S . v ' - -x <A o " 5 

C * o .A ' u 


,/ A. •: 


° Ay ^ ^ 

° ^ S s 

o A v^. * 

X s ^ o 'V Ai 




- ^V»° 

: s s ^ 
























































































































































































































































